What was discussed, yet again???? [Archive]

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-12-2008, 08:31 AM

Some may find this amazing and others will see the status quo.

This past convention was typical Shipp. A schedule that kept us off the floor as much as possible, thus very little got done.

I believe we are healed with the Chiefs Academy.

With Chapter Presentations and the Mavericks Club (not to be confused with the LV Chapter) and the annual Walt Gore Memorial Throw Money on the Floor, CCCAF raised just over $2000.

We did not get committees going until Wed, with their reports due on Thurs. Not a lot of good recommendations. A budget that has little to no accuracy about it. Two committees are still working, Bylaws and Executive Director National Office Review Adhoc. Not sure where Bylaws is going, but from what I have heard so far, it is not good. The ED/NO review is looking into work load and processes. Will see where it leads us. (I am on the bylaws and Chair of the ED)

The only way that I see the current trend changing is for a change in leadership

I fear this has a hard road to travel. With the re-invention of mail in voting (absentee balloting),(resolution 4) name recognition will once again prevail. I hope I am wrong. When I left convention, I felt good about the fact that there was considerable interest in running for office, and especially from the Active Duty side.

From all I talked to, the delegates left St Louis in 05 wanting new leadership. Every incumbent was re elected. I have yet to find anyone who will admit voting for the current Officers, yet the P and VP was won by landslides. I know we had the right system in place. I just wish everyone had given it a chance to work.

As for the minutes, your guess is as good as mine on what takes so long. This is a matter of contention, where we simply do not use the tools available to us to conduct business. The manual, old fashion way has worked since 69 so no need to change, I guess.

And sadly to say Yes there is the Presidents approval process before anything gets published to the membership.

Charlie

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-12-2008, 09:03 AM

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-12-2008, 10:38 AM

I just typed a long reply and lost it (power failure), so I'm not going to waste my time and re-type it..

In short, the CPOA is dying and most don't want to admit it. If I were an active member of a Chapter I would recommend they do as Cape May did, and pull out.

You can't start committee meetings on Wed and have reports due on Thurs.. why waste everyones time.

Same President, same $hit, different day/year.....

Wray... :cool:

JON SHIPP IS NOT THE PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!! The problem is the weak -ass BOD that allows this BS, The problem is members who do nothing but bitch. I pointed out prior to the convention after looking at the schedule that there was not enough time for convention business. (I was right). Charlie thinks that if the election of officers is conducted at the convention that he would be a shoe-in to win, and maybe he would be, but that is no way to elect the associations national officers. Every dues paying member is entitled to have their voice heard!

Old Folk
Jim

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-12-2008, 11:32 AM

Every dues paying member is entitled to have their voice heard!

Old Folk
Jim

Jim,

I could not agree with you more.

It was never about ME! It was about the inherit problems with mail in ballots. It was about what is best for the organization as a whole. You think and have got others thinking I was in it for me. You are so wrong!

Every Chapter could have had a process to see how its membership would want to cast its vote for the next officers. There was never any rights taken away. It was just a different way to do things. Something else that is now not changed and we will continue to keep doing what we are doing. Again, I hope I am wrong.

The problems:
1. How many get lost in the mail.
2. What resourses can we use to absolutely identify who sent in a ballot.
3. To many times being handled and who has access.
4. Who is making decisions on what gets counted and what does not.
5. Deceased members voting
6. Non Members voting
7. No majority vote required. Why is this important? We could have an elected officer in which 66% of the members voting, voted against. If 3 are running for the same office one can win with less than 34% of the vote. And what if 4 ran for the same office. Some one could be elected who 74% of the membership did not want. That is why it is important and another reason to hold elections at convention where it would be easier to obtain a majority vote. If we used a majority requirement, when one does not obtain a majority, another ballot must go out. Thus the other 6 problems kick in again.

I saw a list of 79 reasons, but I just wanted to highlight a few reasons I believe every organization I researched elects their officers at their convention/annual meeting.

You stated in another thread us electing officers at convention would be like
electing the Pres in Congress. Maybe, maybe not. Anyway you look at it the Pres is not elected by mail in ballots as the primary or preferred method of voting. We have polling places. And if you take the time to look it up there are organizations wanting to do away with mail in ballots for our general elections. Reason being? To many problems with mail in ballots.

In 06 the membership was heard, just as you ask. All 800 of us. (Well if my vote was counted, I was one of us) Ever since, you have wanted to get rid of the electedofficers. You have been asking to get rid of who the membership elected. And it was the same people who was elected in 04 with exception of yours truly who ran for Pres and I was beat in a landslide.

There is a number of issues about our balloting, none of which had anything to do with voting rights, not being heard, or if I got elected. It was all about the organization.

Charlie

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-12-2008, 12:16 PM

The problems:
1. How many get lost in the mail.
2. What resourses can we use to absolutely identify who sent in a ballot.
3. To many times being handled and who has access.
4. Who is making decisions on what gets counted and what does not.
5. Deceased members voting
6. Non Members voting
7. No majority vote required. Why is this important? We could have an elected officer in which 66% of the members voting, voted against. If 3 are running for the same office one can win with less than 34% of the vote. And what if 4 ran for the same office. Some one could be elected who 74% of the membership did not want. That is why it is important and another reason to hold elections at convention where it would be easier to obtain a majority vote. If we used a majority requirement, when one does not obtain a majority, another ballot must go out. Thus the other 6 problems kick in again.

Charlie, as I'm sure you know, voting is and always has been a problem... Percentages that vote are always low.. those that vote, in my opinion have the right to bitch.. those that don't don't....

If I thought it would help, I would volunteer to count votes for the CPOA. I don't see it as a big deal... Addressing some of your concerns above...
#1 -- sure they will get lost.. not many.. most will be returned because the member has not updated their address -- THEIR FAULT.
#2 -- easiest possible way is the member number... Maybe I am missing something, but... I see nothing complicated about this... no number, no vote
#3. -- Certainly those in NAtional Office are smart enough to figure this one out.
#4 -- If you are a member, you get to vote.. and only once.. this should be easy enough to do on a spread sheet.
#5 -- are dead members still paying dues? wow, I'm impressed..
#6 -- see #2
#7 -- use K.I.S.S. plan..... simple majority gets it...

It is really hard for me to understand why this is such a big deal....

Ready for all the reasons these things wont work.

Wray... :cool:

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-12-2008, 03:25 PM

Jim,

I could not agree with you more.

It was never about ME! It was about the inherit problems with mail in ballots. It was about what is best for the organization as a whole. You think and have got others thinking I was in it for me. You are so wrong!

Every Chapter could have had a process to see how its membership would want to cast its vote for the next officers. There was never any rights taken away. It was just a different way to do things. Something else that is now not changed and we will continue to keep doing what we are doing. Again, I hope I am wrong.

The problems:
1. How many get lost in the mail.
2. What resourses can we use to absolutely identify who sent in a ballot.
3. To many times being handled and who has access.
4. Who is making decisions on what gets counted and what does not.
5. Deceased members voting
6. Non Members voting
7. No majority vote required. Why is this important? We could have an elected officer in which 66% of the members voting, voted against. If 3 are running for the same office one can win with less than 34% of the vote. And what if 4 ran for the same office. Some one could be elected who 74% of the membership did not want. That is why it is important and another reason to hold elections at convention where it would be easier to obtain a majority vote. If we used a majority requirement, when one does not obtain a majority, another ballot must go out. Thus the other 6 problems kick in again.

I saw a list of 79 reasons, but I just wanted to highlight a few reasons I believe every organization I researched elects their officers at their convention/annual meeting.

You stated in another thread us electing officers at convention would be like
electing the Pres in Congress. Maybe, maybe not. Anyway you look at it the Pres is not elected by mail in ballots as the primary or preferred method of voting. We have polling places. And if you take the time to look it up there are organizations wanting to do away with mail in ballots for our general elections. Reason being? To many problems with mail in ballots.

In 06 the membership was heard, just as you ask. All 800 of us. (Well if my vote was counted, I was one of us) Ever since, you have wanted to get rid of the electedofficers. You have been asking to get rid of who the membership elected. And it was the same people who was elected in 04 with exception of yours truly who ran for Pres and I was beat in a landslide.

There is a number of issues about our balloting, none of which had anything to do with voting rights, not being heard, or if I got elected. It was all about the organization.

Charlie

Charlie 1st, I have not been trying to get rid of the elected officers, should Shipp be removed ? In my opinin YES and I believe that I supplied the reasons that I feel that way.

Do I blame Shipp ? NO, I blame those of you who continue to allow him to run amouk. Accountability is the very keystone of leadership.

The problem I see with chapters electing the national officers is that with "One chapter, One vote " does not provide a true picture. If a chapter has 100 members and 60 want candidate A and 40 want candidate B then the chapter goes with 1 vote for candidate A. The desires of the 40 for B goes uncounted. Perhaps if a chapter could give there total results,60 for A and 40 for B. then total the results of all chapters at the convention, maybe candidate B could still win the total vote!!!

If you feel that a ballot committee cannot be trusted then the only thing to do is hire a private firm which to have the ballots mailed to.

Old folk
Jim

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-12-2008, 09:57 PM

It really is not a big deal, but in my humble opinion there is a better way.

Hopefully we will have delegates by membership which I have proposed and got shot down by national because I submitted Mobile's resolutions by email.

ie: One delegate for the Chapter, and 1 delegate for each 200 members and major fraction therof. Also Chapter caucuses could possibly acquire a unanimous decision.

Any majority vote requirement does not lend well with mail in ballots. If no one gets the 50%+1 then a new ballot must go out. Plurality is the best situation for mail in ballots, but lends itself to some bad numbers when more than 2 people run for an office. The vote at convention, required a majority of those voting to win, not just the most votes.

The member number is one way, problem is each chapter is given a membership roster at regular intervals. Again, how do we know who is sending in the ballots.

I trust our ballot committee completely. It is all the possibilities before the count I have problems with.

I also do not suspect fraud or ballot stuffing, but in 06 Pres himself during his town hall meeting, gave a list of unacceptable practices during the 06 election.

Balloting in person, ID in hand, no ballots lying around for weeks, etc, just lends itself to be a better system. And add an election process at each chapter should help educate the voters on who is who in the organization.

The new rules:
Member number and signature required.
Ballot may be photo copy
Bulk Mailing allowed (This will help chapters who want to hold an election meeting)
Ballot will be avail online. Cannot vote online but ballot available
Ballots mailed directly to Committee (not the National Office)
May vote via email as long as you have a signature. Fax also acceptable
Member must provide postage

The only real improvement made to what we already was doing was getting the ballots out of the National Office.

On this issue I am on the minority at the present time. However as Henry Robert wrote I will submit the action to be that of the entire association, and will cheerfully assist in carrying it out, until I can secure its repeal.

Charlie

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-12-2008, 10:29 PM

Charlie, you have confused me.. first you list 7 problems about voting, then you say "It really is not a big deal"... apparently it is...

After reading your last post I am confused as to how I would vote... In the past, my ballot came in my CHIEF Magazine. All I had to do was mark who I wanted to vote for and return it.. Wouldn't it naturally go to the ballot committee? I still don't see a problem here....

I think ballots can and should be verified by a second source if possible..

I guess I'll just wait and see how things shake out....

Wray... :cool:

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-12-2008, 11:33 PM

Charlie,

You have name recognition, right here. You can put forth your ideas in these forums to gardner votes which could defeat Shipp. Then Shipp will complain the only reason you were elected is because of your name recognition.

Personally, I'd email a ballot. I would sign, scan the thing in and print it to a pdf file.

Start your campaign right here. Get like minded individuals to run for the other offices and have them campaing right here. If you want to throw the bastards out ... start campaigning. Hell, you might convience me to re-establish my association with the CPOA to vote.

I agree with Jim. The BOD didn't want to rock the boat.

CMC Bruce Bradley

09-13-2008, 07:52 AM

JON SHIPP IS NOT THE PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!! The problem is the weak -ass BOD that allows this BS.
Jim

Jim, which BOD are you talking about?

1. The Chapter Presidents or,
2. The seated Convention delegates or,
3. The elected 3 who sit with the NOs.

And also are you saying the shipp isn't a problem period?

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-13-2008, 08:33 AM

Joe,
Internet voting is certainly a good way to do things... and I guess there are ways to ensure members get only one vote, regardless of which computer they use....but, I don't think it will cover all. I know there are several that don't use them, and despite the membership here hovering around 5-6 hundred, there are probably only a dozen or two that post here regularly.

I still feel a postcard, inserted in the CHIEF magazine is the best way. each postcard should have the member's number on it. Only those that are paying the appropriate dues will be authorized to vote.

I sure would like to see a good list of active duty members running for office. Too often in the past we had a choice of only one or if lucky 2 people to choose from.

This entire voting thing is really so simple, but I guess we can turn it into a big deal if need be.

Wray... :cool:

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-13-2008, 10:27 AM

Jim, which BOD are you talking about?

1. The Chapter Presidents or,
2. The seated Convention delegates or,
3. The elected 3 who sit with the NOs.

And also are you saying the shipp isn't a problem period?

Hi Bruce, All the above. Jon Shipp can only do what these chiefs allow him to do, period! He has been allowed to violate the bylaws, select convention sites, hold "Town Hall" meetings, Suggest that a CPOAA unit set up a phony corporation. I could go on and on. He & Trimble even ammended the articles of Incorporation without authorization. When the association lawyer told him there could not be two (2) BOD's, Shipp alone made the decision to go with the new three(3) person BOD saying " they were elected by the members". What a crock of S%#t, There were 22 chapters present and 37 votes cast. All in attendence allowed this. These are clear violations of bylaws and the DC code, not once were they called out of order.

Jim

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-13-2008, 11:08 AM

Charlie, you have confused me..
Wray... :cool:

If mail in is what the majority of the membership wants then so be it. I will abide by that decision. I simply believe there is a better way. It is apparent that with only 800 votes last election the majority is not speaking at all. So it comes down to those who speak up. I still believe resolution 4 passed on emotion and not merit.

Election procedures is not a killer of the organization, nor should it be a reason to turn in a charter.

Ballots will be in THE CHIEF as well as on the web.

Ballots previously went to the National Office. Verified by the E D. The E D and or the Pres decided if a ballot was not acceptable. This is the most severe problem when they went to National. Pres making decisions on ballots while he was running for office. (see the possibilities?) Once this was done they were given to the ballot committee who simply counted them and nothing else. This is the main reason why I believe voting at the convention is a better way. As stated by my list of 7 there are more reasons as well.

Sorry I confused you. Was not intended. When I said it was not a big deal I meant it would not stop me from continuing to serve the CPOA.

C

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-13-2008, 11:18 AM

Charlie,

Start your campaign right here.

I agree with Jim. The BOD didn't want to rock the boat.

I have given some thought to starting a campaign thread.

I don't feel it is a not rock the boat as much as people are just not aware. First we only have about 1/2 the Chapters represented, and a lot of them just don't see everything that goes on. When I put it on the floor last year it was very apparent many simply did not know. Now I can give the info, but it is hard to convince in a one hour session about all that happened over a 3 year period. And we even had a couple try to justify some of the conduct.

Our Chapter leaders are working hard on Chapter issues, Community Outreach, etc, etc,. National affairs may not be (and it has even been stated in this forum Chapter work is what we do) looked at throughout the year. We have some great leaders doing great things. Now we need National leadership that will support them.

Until everyone is in tune, (as they were back in Jim's day) then we have to speak with our VOTE!

C

CMC Bruce Bradley

09-13-2008, 01:03 PM

It is apparent that with only 800 votes last election the majority is not speaking at all. So it comes down to those who speak up. Ballots previously went to the National Office. Verified by the E D. The E D and or the Pres decided if a ballot was not acceptable. This is the most severe problem when they went to National. Pres making decisions on ballots while he was running for office. (see the possibilities?) Once this was done they were given to the ballot committee who simply counted them and nothing else. This is the main reason why I believe voting at the convention is a better way.

I still believe resolution 4 passed on emotion and not merit.
Election procedures is not a killer of the organization, nor should it be a reason to turn in a charter.

Charlie, I'll agree with you that 800 votes were counted in the last national election, if you agree with me that we have no idea how many vote were actually cast. And that reason is explained by your comments.

One Chiefs emotion is another Chiefs merit. I have disagreed with your options and actions with this association and you have disagreed with mine. But we can agree that we are both Chiefs trying to do what we each think is best for our Mess.

And Charlie I hope that you do run. I am still a Silver Life member of the Association and I will be voting, and more than likely in attendance again next year. I might also choose to throw my hat back in again.

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-13-2008, 02:14 PM

Charlie,

Why did the ballots go to the ED? Formerly, they were sent to the Election Committee (I think that was the name) where they were counted.

Sending them to the ED allowing the ED or any National Officer to scrutinze them is stupid and by that consent, the BOD allowed Shipp to remain.

Alot of people read these boards. They are the one's to take back to their chapter the discussion, right or wrong, to address these issues.

Jim has presented evidence towards the phoney corporation issue at Kodiak, in the form of emails from the principles involved.

While you disagree with Cape May's turning in their charter, it was their choice. As Bruce has stated, those that voted in the negative certainly can re-apply for a charter, after all, it only requires 15 CPOs to start a chapter.

Start your campaign. Put forth your ideas as these forums could be your "focus group" so you can assess your ideas.

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-13-2008, 03:35 PM

Charlie

The issue you keep raising about "Name Recongnition" works the same way no matter what the election process is. At conventions your name is well known, if I dicided to run against you and the voting was done at the convention you would be a shoe-in because my name is not as well known as yours. With mail-in ballots I may stand a chance.

The dumbest thing I've heard is mailing the ballots to the national office, I can't even believe it happened. Nowhere in the bylaws or ops manuel is procedurer discussed.

Jim

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-13-2008, 03:45 PM

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 01:02 AM

[quote]This is the main reason why I believe voting at the convention is a better way. As stated by my list of 7 there are more reasons as well.[/quote

Charlie, I belong to the Yortown Chapter.

I live in Florida. I do not make monthly meetings.

How would I vote if I did not attend a convention in Las Vegas?

Wray... :cool:

Wray,

I am sure there is something wrong with any procedure considering we are spread over the entire U S.

And again just as a point of information, I looked at every website listed with TMC and of all the bylaws I found (lost count) I found only 1 other organization who strickly uses mail in ballots. There is one who has a ballot and proxy for mail in, which goes to the convention. Could not find their bylaws so I could get the details on exactly how that works. Every other organization holds their National election at the Annual Convention or Meeting whichever they have.

Got any suggestions?
C

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 01:33 AM

Joe and Jim,

As a cost savings we had the ballot placed in THE CHIEF starting in 2002. They required you place your member number on them for verification. The verification has been done at the National Office because they have the data base.

As for name recognition at convention, it is not the same. The delegates know the member, have seen his/her actions, have talked the issues with them, etc.

The general membership will vote even though they have never met nor seen any of the candidates. They simply go by who has already served. Case in point Jon has been elected in 2000, 02, 04, and 06. He also did at least 3 terms in various offices in the 90's. Each officer is an incumbent who ran last time. Dave Isherwood was the only one not elected who ran opposed by non incumbents.

C

CMC Isherwood

09-14-2008, 07:48 AM

Charlie just made a key point that must be considered in the forward progress of the CPOA. Ballots were sent to the National Office because, "they have the data base". It's 2008, AND the only place that the "data base" can be verified is at the National Office. YIKES!!!

Charlie knows differently, the vast majority of America knows differently, unfortunately our CPOA elected National Officers cannot understand the concept of placing an edited version of the Data Base on a "jump drive" to be transported anywhere its needed!!! YIKES!!

Another case in point, EVERY convention questions arise regarding certain components of the CPOA membership which cannot be answered because the "data base" is back at the National Office. AGAIN YIKES!!

As for electronic voting, that too would be pretty easy to do. Create a spreadsheet roster of members in good standing from the existing data base. Members would then esubmit their ballots containing their CPOA membership #s once membership # was used electronically, that # could no longer be used. For those that snail mail, fax, or hand deliver their ballots containing their membership #, the ballot committee would simply manually enter the data. Heck, with only 800 returns, how hard could it be???!!!!!

Everyone KNOWS what needs to be done but NO ONE wants to have that difficult conversations.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-14-2008, 09:24 AM

Kevin, you have done an excellent job of stating what a non productive BOD the CPOA has.

A non transferrable data base... Please ... A copy of it should have been on the NES laptop at the convention. As you say, certainly the elections committee should have a copy of it as well... how else could they do their job.

I do fail to understand one comment you made.. which was:

Everyone KNOWS what needs to be done but NO ONE wants to have that difficult conversations.

Kevin, your statement above says volumes about those that were in attendance at the convention... and the convention as a whole.. A complete waste of time in my opinion.. as per YOUR statement.

With the convention just ending, I understand not one thing was done to correct this non productive BOD or "dictator" type President. "YIKES!!"

I believe both you and Charlie said it was not the right time to do this.. Apparently you and he are content with with another year of this. I see is as one more event on non-leadership.

Muck along as you will, eventually if you wait long enough things will change.. Next year people will/may change.... muck along.

Wray... :cool:

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-14-2008, 09:46 AM

The general membership will vote even though they have never met nor seen any of the candidates. They simply go by who has already served. Case in point Jon has been elected in 2000, 02, 04, and 06. He also did at least 3 terms in various offices in the 90's. Each officer is an incumbent who ran last time. Dave Isherwood was the only one not elected who ran opposed by non incumbents.

I guess the general membership votes pretty much as we do during our Presidential elections, since most of us never meet or see the candidates....

Each candidate submits their "write up" for the Chief Magazine... We try to vote for those we feel most qualified for the position based on the write up and any personal knowledge of the individual or their job performance.

If I get the opportunity to vote next election, I believe it is time for a "Clean sweep"... We need new people in these positions... and I believe they should be active duty members. Name recognition won't cut it for me in the future... that is not to say it hasn't in the past, but that is history.

First things first, I guess I need to see if I get a ballot....

Wray... :cool:

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-14-2008, 09:59 AM

How about an ITC or above visit the National Office and give is the true story on their computer system and this non-transferrable database?

You can have a mixture of voting ... web based, email, fax, in person, and snail mail. If I left any out, let me know.

All the election committee needs to know is the members name and members number. Duplicate votes ... should not be counted towards the election, but the number reported in the election committee's report.

Jon should have been sumarrily dismissed if he played a part in the verification process as Charle eluded.

As far as the national officers and the illegal national BOD meetings, they can be done by E-mail as illustrated by the MI Department of the American Legion PR Committee.

For instance ...

Mail/E-Mail Vote:
The committee may transact business by mail or e-mail vote. If an e-mail vote is implemented, each response must be forwarded to all members of the Committee. If standard mail, the voting shall be considered closed at the end of seven (7) business days provided a majority of members of the committee have returned to the Chairman their votes by that time, or it shall be considered closed at anytime prior thereto and when all the members have returned their votes. In the event one-third (1/3) members of the committee objects in writing, the matter shall not be decided and will be considered as the first order of business at the next regular meeting or special meeting and the Chairman shall notify the committee of the action taken.

Even conference calls must be cheaper than all that travel money.

Internet conferencing is even cheaper. Open up a chatroom and have at it. Every computer has Instant Messenger. That way the board members can sit in their skivies, have a drink of their choice, and conduct the business of the CPOA.

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 10:30 AM

How about an ITC or above visit the National Office and give is the true story on their computer system and this non-transferrable database?

Even conference calls must be cheaper than all that travel money.

Internet conferencing is even cheaper. Open up a chatroom and have at it. Every computer has Instant Messenger. That way the board members can sit in their skivies, have a drink of their choice, and conduct the business of the CPOA.

Convention after convention after convention we have had volunteers going to go and work with Tom on some things we cannot do. No one has yet to show up.

If I chose to run one of my platform items would be to get us into the electronic age.

At convention the delegates approved for National to subscribe to MYCOMPUTER.COM or other suitable product so we can access the computer at national while at convention.

C

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 10:33 AM

If I get the opportunity to vote next election, I believe it is time for a "Clean sweep"... We need new people in these positions... and I believe they should be active duty members. Name recognition won't cut it for me in the future... that is not to say it hasn't in the past, but that is history.

First things first, I guess I need to see if I get a ballot....

Wray... :cool:

I hope you campaign for a clean sweep! Get the word out.

As long as you get THE CHIEF you will get a ballot.

C

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-14-2008, 10:40 AM

Been getting it since 1978......;)

Wray... :cool:

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 10:49 AM

Everyone KNOWS what needs to be done but NO ONE wants to have that difficult conversations.

This task is up to the National Officers. They were advised at this convention the talk needed to be made. Will have to see if they heed wise counsel.

C

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 11:00 AM

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-14-2008, 11:00 AM

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-14-2008, 11:14 AM

Question All,
(this just came on me a couple days ago)

Am I the only one who finds it an odd time to do a bylaws overhaul during an election year. The current officers agenda may not match what a new group may be thinking.

We only have one real issue, and that is to delete the Amendment and Revision paragraph that gives everyone in attendance a vote.

C

Charlie, The only thing I find "Odd" is the need to ever "overhaul" the bylaws and the only agenda any officers should have is to carry out the directions given them by the membership. The associations officers & BOD do not set the agenda. Please no more NO's resolutions.

There is more than " one real issue", I can point out many things in the bylaws that make no sense or are illegal.

Jim

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-14-2008, 11:33 AM

I guess the general membership votes pretty much as we do during our Presidential elections, since most of us never meet or see the candidates....

Each candidate submits their "write up" for the Chief Magazine... We try to vote for those we feel most qualified for the position based on the write up and any personal knowledge of the individual or their job performance.

Your first statement is somewhat true. However, we get an abundance of information for our Presidential Candidate. In CPOA we get a couple paragraphs in a magazine.

We know how many people are aware of our state as an organization. Is it enough to get us out of the status quo.

C

CMC Bruce Bradley

09-14-2008, 03:07 PM

And again just as a point of information, I looked at every website listed with TMC and of all the bylaws I found (lost count) I found only 1 other organization who strickly uses mail in ballots. There is one who has a ballot and proxy for mail in, which goes to the convention. Could not find their bylaws so I could get the details on exactly how that works. Every other organization holds their National election at the Annual Convention or Meeting whichever they have.

I know that you have told us about your research numerous time and also who some of the other organizations were you looked at. And having looked at some of them also I understand why they were doing things the way they do.

Most of them are much larger groups, and mailing would create a huge cluster for them to manage. Most of them also have several layers of conventions, state, regional and national or international. By the time they get to the voting it is a well vetted process and the delegates know their tasking from their folks. Most if not all of those other associations also allow for proxy voting.

Granted if you want to be a bigger association then you should act and run like one. But we are not there and have too many other hurdles to overcome before we can or should progress beyond baby steps.

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-14-2008, 07:44 PM

Charlie,

Go ahead an put forth your resume in the CPOA Magazine. Just mention there is more context to your ideas at the forums here at CGChiefs.com

Maybe you can drum up some business for this board. :D

Maybe you can shame Jon into putting forth some information here.

Maybe if all the candidates show up here, the members here can use their sphere of influence to have a spirited election.

All those may be's ... will the seeds produce fruit? Another maybe.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-14-2008, 09:29 PM

Joe, I just think no one gives a $hit anymore.. What are there, 6 of us that post on the CPOA threads? How many are active duty? one? two? The CPOA is dying, and no one wants to admit it. (I don;t like saying that, I am a lifetime member, but that is reality.. like it or not)

I hope, but doubt, there will be an active duty member nominated for Pres, VP, Sec & Treas.... but I'd bet $$$ there wont be... I bet it will be the same old retired folks...

Wray... :cool:

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-14-2008, 11:26 PM

It's certainly looking that way.

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-15-2008, 09:37 PM

CMC Isherwood

09-15-2008, 10:02 PM

Wray,
I do not recall saying that I was satisfied with the current National Officers.

Matter of fact.....oh never mind, my forehead has become damaged and I prefer it not to get worse.

"CHARLIE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2009"

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-15-2008, 10:29 PM

YIKES! -- Kevin don't get a headache....but, (correct me if I am incorrect) didn't you and Charlie have an opportunity to do something about the current National Officers at the convention you just attended? Certainly you and Charlie are not afraid to speak up for your beliefs are you? YIKES!.. I think that may be it.. otherwise, why was nothing done?

YIKES! Another year of the same National Officers...

Anyone that wants to be President needs the leadership qualities to "speak up".. After all I have read from Charlie here I didn't see anything happen there

Sorry Charlie, you wont be getting my vote....

Wray.. :cool:

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-16-2008, 07:14 AM

Greetings All,

I had a couple discussions at convention which surprised me a little, concerning there is a lot of Chief's (active duty to be exact) who track our little commentary here but do not post.

Not sure what they are looking for, but they sure getting an eye full.

Anyway, our work is not in vain.

C

Track but do not post? Sounds to me like they either don't have much interest in the CPOA, or, after hearing how Jon Shipp has been such a dictator, making his own rules, they were waiting to see what was going to be done about it at the convention. Perhaps that was the deciding factor for them to get "involved, or not get involved". We see which avenue they took.

Once again, in my opinion, if they were able to attend the convention, they were able to get involved.. Why didn't they? The CPOA certainly doesn't need any more non decisive people sitting on the fence post.

Wray... :cool:

YNC Tim Mooney

09-16-2008, 02:28 PM

So Wray who do you propose to be the next President of the CPOA? Since you don't think Charlie should, or anyone else who attended this last convention (I was one of them).
Tim

P.S. Vote for Charlie!

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-16-2008, 03:59 PM

YNC Tim Mooney

09-17-2008, 12:44 AM

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-17-2008, 12:45 AM

Tim, I will decide who to vote for when I see who is running.. quite frankly Charlie, like many others may run un-opposed.

I guess you are missing my point.... I feel those that had issues with Jon, as Charlie did... and stated here several times, should have taken the opportunity to do something about it. I do not know your views about Jon, as a president.. For all I know you think he is the best president the CPOA has ever had.

I have said several time I feel the officers should be active duty members... that puts YOU in and me OUT. Go for it Chief.

Wray... :cool:

I was hoping this discussion was over and we move on to the next year of business. Getting new leadership.

To remove without notice would require a 2/3 vote. I alone cannot remove someone from office. Regardless of my feelings about the job being done, I can only suggest or propose but I cannot speak for everyone. I put out some feelers, observed the tone when he was asked to resign, and in my humble opinion it would not have happened. Unless you know of some magical formula the would allow one person to take such action, then we need to concentrate on who we are going to elect.

C

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-17-2008, 02:04 AM

To remove without notice would require a 2/3 vote.

Ok Charlie, I must be blind. There is no 2/3 vote requirements under the Discipline section in the CB&L (Oct 07 edition).

CMC Bruce Bradley

09-17-2008, 06:17 AM

I was hoping this discussion was over and we move on to the next year of business. Getting new leadership.

To remove without notice would require a 2/3 vote. I alone cannot remove someone from office. Regardless of my feelings about the job being done, I can only suggest or propose but I cannot speak for everyone. I put out some feelers, observed the tone when he was asked to resign, and in my humble opinion it would not have happened. Unless you know of some magical formula the would allow one person to take such action, then we need to concentrate on who we are going to elect.

C

Yes, but the attempt and having it on the record would set a tone and have sent a message. Although he might have survived the vote (from your vantage point), notice would have been given in something more tangible that just an academic discussion on line or in the hallways of the convention hotel. Members would take notice of that action and then hopefully start to pay a little better attention to what's going on. If changes don;t follow then who know what might happen with a future vote on the issue.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-17-2008, 08:34 AM

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-17-2008, 08:44 AM

To remove without notice would require a 2/3 vote. I alone cannot remove someone from office. Regardless of my feelings about the job being done, I can only suggest or propose but I cannot speak for everyone.

All of that goes without saying.

Judging from your previous posts and comments here there were several in agreement with you. After all, there were National Officers that resigned over his dictatorship... Certainly this was well known by those attending the convention.

I put out some feelers, observed the tone when he was asked to resign, and in my humble opinion it would not have happened.

Being asked to resign and taking it to a vote are two completely different things. I would have thought you could get a 2/3 vote pretty easily, based on what I have read here. Perhaps not... At any rate, it really doesn't matter now.. The convention is over, and he is the president for another year. :rolleyes:

Wray... :cool:

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-17-2008, 10:09 AM

Well, I am looking forward to a change of leadership of our organization. I am and have not been happy with Jon Shipp as President of CPOA, but I don't see enough evidence/reasons to remove him from office.

So I will wait for the electoral process work this fall. And I am happy that the ballots are not going to the National Office but to the nomiantion/ballot committee.

I have intentions of running for VP, and know of 1 other active duty member who is interested also. From what I heard in Houston is that we have several running for President, Vice, and maybe Treasurer.

Tim
Charlie for President!!

Tim, I can only ask, Where have you been? Not "enough evidence" first of all no evidence is required, read the law!
1. He suggested Kodiak CPOAA set up a phony corp. as a way not to comply with the CPOA bylaws.
2. violated DC code 29-301.17 by allowing a members vote without the required quorum.
3. Bylaws section V requires "one chapter, one vote" 22 chapters present, 37 votes cast. Thats illegal!
4. Section V of the bylaws lays out convention procedure, he violated that by deciding to hold a "Town Hall Meeting"
5. The CPOA lawyer said there could not be two (2) BOD's, the CPOA still has 2, thats untenable!
6. Bylaws require convention committee to bring choices to the BOD for site selection, he selected the site himself, Las Vegas.

I could go on and on .
Jim

PS, If you want to elect a nice guy, vote for Charlie, but if you want a president that will obey the law, keep looking because charlie does not understand it.

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-17-2008, 12:45 PM

Come on Jim.

You know in this country anything older than 30 seconds is ancient history. Your litany of wrong doings is ancient history. You have no evidence.

p.s. I don't believe any of what I just wrote.

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-17-2008, 12:51 PM

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-17-2008, 01:01 PM

Hey Jim, Joe & I were thinking of "Drafting" you to nun for President next year.....

Wray... :cool:

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-17-2008, 01:06 PM

I was hoping this discussion was over and we move on to the next year of business. Getting new leadership.

To remove without notice would require a 2/3 vote. I alone cannot remove someone from office. Regardless of my feelings about the job being done, I can only suggest or propose but I cannot speak for everyone. I put out some feelers, observed the tone when he was asked to resign, and in my humble opinion it would not have happened. Unless you know of some magical formula the would allow one person to take such action, then we need to concentrate on who we are going to elect.

C

Charlie, again I find your knowledge lacking, DC code 29-301.25 allows for the removal of any officers, anytime the best interest of the CPOA would be served. There is nothing requiring a 2/3rd vote. Putting out "feeler" does not get the job done. All that was needed was one person at the convention to make a motion that for the good of the association he be removed, get a second, open the floor for discussion and at the end of the discussion vote. Majority rules.

Old folk
Jim

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-17-2008, 09:24 PM

Charlie, again I find your knowledge lacking, DC code 29-301.25 allows for the removal of any officers, anytime the best interest of the CPOA would be served. There is nothing requiring a 2/3rd vote. Putting out "feeler" does not get the job done. All that was needed was one person at the convention to make a motion that for the good of the association he be removed, get a second, open the floor for discussion and at the end of the discussion vote. Majority rules.

Old folk
Jim

I may not be a lawyer and according to Jim I am dumber than a box of rocks, but here goes anyway.

The law says "Officers may be removed........ BY THOSE AUTHORIZED TO ELECT OR APPOINT THEM." If everyone must be afforded a vote to elect, then everyone must be afforded a vote to remove

Those attending convention made it not possible for the convention delegates to remove anyone by this law. Those authorized to elect is the entire membership. ANOTHER REASON ELECTIONS SHOULD BE HELD AT CONVENTION.

Therefore removal falls back on the organizations bylaws, (and this is why we submitted a resolution last year and got it passed) which states "in accordance with current parliamentary procedure", and rescinding anything (and you would be rescinding the election) requires a 2/3 vote unless previous notice has been given.

Again, having attending the convention, I seriously doubt getting even close to a majority let alone 2/3. If those attending this past convention can prove me wrong then I will walk away and never be heard from again.

The even worse fact of all this is: EVEN WITH ALL JIM LISTED IN HIS POST WHICH IS CORRECT (except the illegal vote thing), THE ONLY THING REALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ORGANIZATION IS NOTHING HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

MEMBERSHIP HAS NOT GROWN
FINANCES HAS NOT GROWN
CCCAF HAS NOT GROWN
WE ARE STILL NOT USING THE INTERNET TO ITS FULLEST
OUR MAGAZINE IS STILL HAND MADE
etc, etc, etc,

SIMPLY PUT, EVEN WITH ALL THAT HAS GONE WRONG, ESSENTIALLY NOTHING HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST 4 YEARS EXCEPT A LONG ARGUEMENT OVER THE BYLAWS and HOW WILL WE HAVE CONVENTION.

YOU ALL GOT YOUR ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP VOTE FOR ELECTIONS, NOW LIVE WITH IT.

Charlie
PS Feel free to contact your lawyer and have him correct my interpretation.

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-18-2008, 12:54 AM

Charlie,

Nice quoting the DC Code when it supports you.

However, Section VII of the CB&L states SECTION VIII
Discipline and Jurisdiction
1. The Board of Directors will have jurisdiction over the General Membership of the Association to include National Officers and Board Members between Conventions and shall be governed by current Parliamentary Authority. All disciplinary actions of the Board of Directors is subject to ratification of the membership. The Board of Directors shall report all disciplinary actions taken each year to the Annual Convention. (2007)

2. The Convention Delegates shall have jurisdiction over the General Membership, National Officers and Board of Directors during the Annual Convention and shall be governed by current Parliamentary Authority. (2007)

3. In the unfortunate event a trial, removal from office or revocation of membership should become necessary it shall be conducted in accordance with current Parliamentary Authority, both leading up to and including the specific process itself. Trials, Removal from Office and Revocation of Membership shall be held during Annual Convention. The National Board of Directors shall take all necessary action between Annual Conventions in the event of illegal activity by a National Officer, Board Member or the General Membership, and is subject to ratification of the membership. (2007)

The Convention Delegates, being the govering boady during the convention, could have removed Jon with a 2/3rds vote as required by section 44.20 of Roberts Rules. The CB&L defines clearly who is a Convention delegate.

Now, if you decide the National BOD as the governing body, it would take six of seven, to dismiss Jon. In this case, Jon would be the desenting vote.

If your calling the President a member of the National Board of Directors (as per the CB&L), they fall under the DC code pertaining to the BOD ... which doesn't require a vote of those who put them in office to remove them.

The current CB&L (Oct 2007) isn't congruent with the DC law, and for the record, neither was the 1995 version on this issue. You can't bounce between DC Code, Articles of Incorporation, CB&L, OPSMAN, and RR. Either they all are consistent or they need to be brought into consistency. Precedence is with the CB&L as Jim stated he chaired a committee to remove an elected official before they took office at the Convention.

You can assign blame to those who didn't want to give up the individual's right to vote.

MKCM Keith Livingstone (Ret.)

09-18-2008, 10:27 AM

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-18-2008, 11:44 AM

Keith,
Unless there is a lot more interest than I am currently aware of, I think the ship is sinking. I realize this site only has about 500 members, 20 of which are "regular" posters.. That certainly doesn't represent much of the CG...

I hope threre is a lot of discussions, talk & e-mails concerning the CPOA among the active duty CPO corps. As an organization, it needs a lot of "active" members....

Wray.. :cool:

MKCM Keith Livingstone (Ret.)

09-18-2008, 12:15 PM

Wray ...

I agree with you completely! Seems to me nobody (active duty wise) wants to step up to the plate and try to hit a home run to keep the organization together - which is sad in my opinion.

Guess we'll see what shakes out of the trees this year - I know most of the old school folks need to go ... I think Charlie ( although not AD ) would be an excellent start to get things rattled up enough to make some positive moves in some even direction.

Keith

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-18-2008, 02:29 PM

Having known Charlie and worked with him ... I think the Assn would be stepping in the right direction to elect him the next go around .... but that's just my humble opinion. My bet is he would inject new ideas and get things moving away from the stagnant state the CPOA has dug itself into.

I can't figure out for the life of me what people like charlie are trying to accomplish, where are they trying to take the CPOA. The CPOA ran smooth for decades with little if any problems. No one can explain the need for these changes.

Charlie thinks that there are several laws, The DC code, the CPOA bylaws, The articles of Incorporation, the operations manuel, and last but not least Roberts Rules of Order. If he can't find the law he wants in one set he goes to another. In a e-mail he sent to the District of Columbia he ask if the CPOA could hold its annual meeting using a "Convention Format", the answer he recieved was YES. He took that to mean there were no quorum requirement if called a CONVENTION. What it really meant was, Call it anything you desire just obey the law.

The two (2) BOD question, there can't be two (2) so what does the CPOA and charlie do ? They change the name of one to GOVERNING BODY, as I tried to explain to him, it does not matter what name they are given, they are what they are.

THE ONLY LAW IS THE DC CODE, FAILURE TO OBEY THE LAW CAN RESULT IN JAIL TIME. THIS IS NOT SOME KIDS GAME WHERE YOU CAN MAKEUP YOUR OWN RULES. Charlie is 100% wrong.

Jim

MKCM Keith Livingstone (Ret.)

09-18-2008, 03:18 PM

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-18-2008, 06:08 PM

Jim ..

I guess I'm missing something here - from what I interpret from Charlie is that he wants to get the Assn back on track. A feat that will be a tough road to navigate and won't be done with any lightening fast speed. There is so much information about laws and so forth written in these threads - it's hard to track what is really the [law] issue. I'm sure you are well versed in these - and I sure would like to know just exactly where Charlie stands of fixing any actual "law" problems. I don't think he is of the mindset to just randomly or blatanly conduct himself in an illegal fashion.

Q - What law is being broken?
Q - What remedy can Charlie bring to the table?
Q - Why is there such a problem getting active duty Chief's to participate?
Q - Should there even be a CPOA anymore?

Keith

Hi Keith

1st let me say that the CPOA bylaws & Ops manuel must comply with the DC code where we are incorporated as a non-profit org.

Every meeting of the association must comply with that code of laws, if it is a members meeting then the requirements of code 29-301.14, 15, 16,&17 must be complied with. Its that simple

If it is a BOD meeting then the laws governing that kind of meeting must be complied with 29-301.18, 21, 23

You cannot combine them as the CPOA has been doing and charlie has gone along with. once again I use this example to prove my point. The bylaws section V under voting says 1 chapter, 1 vote, when the new BOD was elected there were 22 chapters there, therefore there could not legally be more than 22 votes, there were 37 cast. Thats Illegal. Charlie & others called it a membership vote, yet the requirements as stated above were not complied with.

The associations lawyer said there cannot be 2 BOD's. The CPOA still has 2, they are both just not called BOD, 1 is called a "Governing Body" . Do you think that changing a name changes what they are?

Charlie believes that if the annual meeting is called a convention then the requirements of the law governing a members meeting don't have to be complied with. thats foolish.

More later Keith, thats for asking, please provide feedback.

Jim

YNC Tim Mooney

09-18-2008, 06:21 PM

Jim, are you running for office to help correct this?

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-18-2008, 07:58 PM

Jim, are you running for office to help correct this?

Tim, Why do you ask?

I joined the association in feb 69 before there was a national association, I have served as president of 4 different chapters, been a active member of 8 different chapters. I attended approx 20 conventions most at my own expense. I have chaired most national standing committees, as well convention committees. I spent 33 years in the service and have been retired for 20 years. I have studied the law and consider myself "well versed". At 70 years of age I don't think that I'm what the CPOA needs at this time, however I will not just sit back and watch what was built by some great chiefs ruined by what is taking place these days. I have offered my help on several occasions to shipp , Trimble & charlie and have hundreds of e-mails to prove it, they didn't want help from a old retired CMC.

Do you think I should run ?

Jim

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-18-2008, 08:12 PM

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-18-2008, 10:02 PM

Keith, When I signed off before I said "Thats for asking" I meant thanks for asking.

Charlie does not appear to know the difference the LAW & parlimentary procedure. the law cannot be subsituted as charlie is fond of doing.

Keith have you read the DC code?

Jim

Greetings All,

I generally do not disagree with Jim on the law with the exception of his habit of finding one line to live, on instead of the whole law. Our disagreement is truly based on how we get there.

If we did not need a guide for procedure, then why is it the habit with every organization like ours to insert Roberts as our Parliamentary Authority. Note the word Authority. Jim says Code trumps Roberts. Fine I can agree with that but then find me one voting procedure in the Code. Can't cause it's not there.

I will address a couple issues with the Bylaws.

There is nothing I can find anywhere that makes the voting procedure we have for amending and revising the bylaws illegal. Jim keeps saying it is but cannot quote one law nor rule that says so. Now is it in conflict with our convention rules. Yes. Is it an unusual procedure? yes Should it be removed from the bylaws? yes. Is it illegal? no Now getting 2/3 (which is required for a bylaws change) of those whose vote you are going to take away to agree, may be another problem. I am going to work on this one with the bylaws committee before next convention. From what I heard I finally think the folks at National are getting the conflict of this one figured out.

I do not care how loud Jim screams or anyone else for that matter. I have said this before and will say it until the cows come home. WE DO NOT HAVE TWO BOARD OF DIRECTORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a B O D to manage the affairs of the organization as required. They should work year round managing and carrying out the mandates of the convention.

We have a Convention Delegation who ONCE A YEAR represents their respective chapter memberships in deciding the business of the organization for the ensuing year.

I have begged and pleaded for folks to look up the definitions and have even posted them myself, and the two do not mean the same thing, they both have different functions. I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS ORGANIZATION TO BECOME A B O D ONLY ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you will look this up, you will find nobody gets a vote. There is not even an election they appoint themselves. NOT ON MY WATCH!!!!!!

I asked the folks in D C if a convention as defined by Roberts met the requirement (of the law) of our annual meeting. I got back a lawyers answer. I do not feel the question was answered because all it took was a yes or no. They pretty much left it up to the bylaws. Jim believes they sent back an absolute NO IT DOES NOT. But again, our disagreement is on how we get there.

As for what I would do concerning the legal aspect of it all, is ensure we are meeting the requirements. Nothing more, Nothing less.

C

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-18-2008, 10:13 PM

Charlie,

You can assign blame to those who didn't want to give up the individual's right to vote.

Joe,

Was not assigning blame. Jim said we did not have to have a 2/3 and that it was a simple motion on the floor.

I was stating why it required a 2/3 vote.

I could have stayed away from the entire membership vote, but fact is, that is why we have to follow another procedure.

Everyone is wondering why I did not remove Jon or why he was not removed. I will state again, I did not see a 2/3 vote. PERIOD. One or three or four is not enough. If 2/3 of the delegates will come on here and tell me I misread the tone, and I missed it, then as I said before, I will disappear.

C

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-18-2008, 10:21 PM

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-19-2008, 12:33 AM

PS: How's that for politicing?

Not bad, but I don't think that two-step will work with some here.

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-19-2008, 07:40 AM

Greetings All,

I generally do not disagree with Jim on the law with the exception of his habit of finding one line to live, on instead of the whole law. Our disagreement is truly based on how we get there.

If we did not need a guide for procedure, then why is it the habit with every organization like ours to insert Roberts as our Parliamentary Authority. Note the word Authority. Jim says Code trumps Roberts. Fine I can agree with that but then find me one voting procedure in the Code. Can't cause it's not there.

I will address a couple issues with the Bylaws.

There is nothing I can find anywhere that makes the voting procedure we have for amending and revising the bylaws illegal. Jim keeps saying it is but cannot quote one law nor rule that says so. Now is it in conflict with our convention rules. Yes. Is it an unusual procedure? yes Should it be removed from the bylaws? yes. Is it illegal? no Now getting 2/3 (which is required for a bylaws change) of those whose vote you are going to take away to agree, may be another problem. I am going to work on this one with the bylaws committee before next convention. From what I heard I finally think the folks at National are getting the conflict of this one figured out.

I do not care how loud Jim screams or anyone else for that matter. I have said this before and will say it until the cows come home. WE DO NOT HAVE TWO BOARD OF DIRECTORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a B O D to manage the affairs of the organization as required. They should work year round managing and carrying out the mandates of the convention.

We have a Convention Delegation who ONCE A YEAR represents their respective chapter memberships in deciding the business of the organization for the ensuing year.

I have begged and pleaded for folks to look up the definitions and have even posted them myself, and the two do not mean the same thing, they both have different functions. I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS ORGANIZATION TO BECOME A B O D ONLY ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you will look this up, you will find nobody gets a vote. There is not even an election they appoint themselves. NOT ON MY WATCH!!!!!!

I asked the folks in D C if a convention as defined by Roberts met the requirement (of the law) of our annual meeting. I got back a lawyers answer. I do not feel the question was answered because all it took was a yes or no. They pretty much left it up to the bylaws. Jim believes they sent back an absolute NO IT DOES NOT. But again, our disagreement is on how we get there.

As for what I would do concerning the legal aspect of it all, is ensure we are meeting the requirements. Nothing more, Nothing less.

C

Good morning Charlie

You say, "We don't have two BOD's" Lets see, there is a meeting of convention delegates that the bylaws say is the decision makers during the convention. There is another group that manages for the other 51 weeks.

Question: Which is the superior body. the convention delegates or the 7 person BOD? Decisions make by the superior body may not be modified by the junior body. So charlie if the chapter delegates are the reps of the members then nothing approved by them at the "convention", Annual meeting" may be changed by this 7 person BOD, including the budget.

So please tell us who is in charge, the members, their reps, the 7 person BOD, the national officers, or Jon Shipp?

Jim

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-19-2008, 10:55 AM

Good morning Charlie

You say, "We don't have two BOD's" Lets see, there is a meeting of convention delegates that the bylaws say is the decision makers during the convention. There is another group that manages for the other 51 weeks.

Question: Which is the superior body. the convention delegates or the 7 person BOD? Decisions make by the superior body may not be modified by the junior body. So charlie if the chapter delegates are the reps of the members then nothing approved by them at the "convention", Annual meeting" may be changed by this 7 person BOD, including the budget.

So please tell us who is in charge, the members, their reps, the 7 person BOD, the national officers, or Jon Shipp?

Jim

You are correct. You have the chain down to a science. Congrats Jim!

Now remove the National Officers as a governing body for that is not their job. They represent the organization, sign correspondence, oversee the daily business of the organization (pay the bills so to speak) responsible for the building assets etc. And Pres is just the Pres.

Anyone who believes this should not vote for me. If you think a group of people meeting once a year for 5 days can effectively manage this or any other organization for the entire year, without missing one item, knowing exactly what is going to happen to the membership numbers, knowing exactly what office equipment will break, knowing exactly each and every power bill, phone bill, etc etc etc Then you have found the absolute perfect management system.

The Membership (very superior body) sends the Convention Delegates (superior body) to tell the Board of Directors (not the superior body) what direction and what programs we want and will support. The delegates are there to ratify the Boards actions and pass a budget revise the bylaws along with any other business brought before the assembly. It is then The B O D who manages these mandates. Their powers are outlined in the Bylaws which are approved by the membership, through their representatives.

Current case in point, this past years rift with the CPO Academy. Doesn't matter what the intent, fact is the B O D exceeded their authority to cut off all support. The membership has stated we will support the CPO Academy. The B O D could not change that. Again all good intent as to why they did, but it was the wrong move to make. The membership shouted it's outrage and the Board reconsidered it's position. All has worked out and we now have a better relationship than we had in the past.

Look, everyone needs to grasp the concept. First, convention is in leiu of an entire membership meeting. It does not eliminate the membership from the decision making process, but provides an avenue for membership input and feedback.I can see no way we could hold an entire membership meeting and believe the membership is truly represented by less than a 100 or so folks. With the convention there is representation. Representation is the main content of it's definition.

(just for you Jim) The LAW say's we shall have a membership meeting. I contend Convention is how we accomplish it. Has nothing to do with understanding the law (as you say I am 100% wrong at it) but has everything to do with how we can meet the requirement, and best serve our members. Prior to 06, this organization used the convention process. Just because the B O D was used to represent, did not change the fact the convention process was used including all of its rules. And to say because they were the B O D and that made it legal, but as we use it now is not, (as you have previously stated) is simply wrong and cannot be supported.

C

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-19-2008, 11:49 AM

Anyone who believes this should not vote for me. If you think a group of people meeting once a year for 5 days can effectively manage this or any other organization for the entire year, without missing one item, knowing exactly what is going to happen to the membership numbers, knowing exactly what office equipment will break, knowing exactly each and every power bill, phone bill, etc etc etc Then you have found the absolute perfect management system.

No, Charile, you're missing the point. The Chapter Presidents can hold monthly meetings as the National BOD ... via email or other electronic means.

There is no issue so great that it requires an on the spot decision, if there is, a conference call would suffice.

The problem lies in the resistance to change of one generation to the next. Today's generation is more comfortable with email, chatrooms, and other amenities not available to earlier generations. I've embraced the technological changes, my PO2 once said ... eighteen years ago ... Chief, what would do without the computer and fax?

It's time for the association to wake up and smell the new century. In this respect, those on the Active Duty side need to have a revolution and place active duty types in the halls of power. Old Farts, like Jim, need to offer guidance.

I think you're incorrect in your assessment that there are not two governing bodies. One for the convention and one for the rest of the year. That is what the CB&L states.

I'll post the DC code in pdf format as soon as I'm finished creating the wordfile and links. I don't want anyone taking my word for anything. I want them to read and comprend for themselves.

It would cost me at least sixty dollars to re-join the CPOA. Twenty five dollars for membership and thirty-five dollars to get a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and associated documents from the District of Columbia.

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-19-2008, 02:49 PM

You are correct. You have the chain down to a science. Congrats Jim!

Now remove the National Officers as a governing body for that is not their job. They represent the organization, sign correspondence, oversee the daily business of the organization (pay the bills so to speak) responsible for the building assets etc. And Pres is just the Pres.

Anyone who believes this should not vote for me. If you think a group of people meeting once a year for 5 days can effectively manage this or any other organization for the entire year, without missing one item, knowing exactly what is going to happen to the membership numbers, knowing exactly what office equipment will break, knowing exactly each and every power bill, phone bill, etc etc etc Then you have found the absolute perfect management system.

The Membership (very superior body) sends the Convention Delegates (superior body) to tell the Board of Directors (not the superior body) what direction and what programs we want and will support. The delegates are there to ratify the Boards actions and pass a budget revise the bylaws along with any other business brought before the assembly. It is then The B O D who manages these mandates. Their powers are outlined in the Bylaws which are approved by the membership, through their representatives.

Current case in point, this past years rift with the CPO Academy. Doesn't matter what the intent, fact is the B O D exceeded their authority to cut off all support. The membership has stated we will support the CPO Academy. The B O D could not change that. Again all good intent as to why they did, but it was the wrong move to make. The membership shouted it's outrage and the Board reconsidered it's position. All has worked out and we now have a better relationship than we had in the past.

Look, everyone needs to grasp the concept. First, convention is in leiu of an entire membership meeting. It does not eliminate the membership from the decision making process, but provides an avenue for membership input and feedback.I can see no way we could hold an entire membership meeting and believe the membership is truly represented by less than a 100 or so folks. With the convention there is representation. Representation is the main content of it's definition.

(just for you Jim) The LAW say's we shall have a membership meeting. I contend Convention is how we accomplish it. Has nothing to do with understanding the law (as you say I am 100% wrong at it) but has everything to do with how we can meet the requirement, and best serve our members. Prior to 06, this organization used the convention process. Just because the B O D was used to represent, did not change the fact the convention process was used including all of its rules. And to say because they were the B O D and that made it legal, but as we use it now is not, (as you have previously stated) is simply wrong and cannot be supported.

C

Charlie, That is exactly what I knew you would say!!! "MANAGES" Not MODIFY, Not CHANGE, just MANAGE, This is what I have meant all along about you twisting words, If managing means exceding the budget by 1 red cent then its illegal. The members tell their chapter reps how they want their money spent and once that budget is passed at the convention no line item ammount may be exceded without going back to those with budget approval authority. to do otherwise would mean that the chapter reps are meerly making recommendations.

This is one reason the lawyer said there can't be two BOD's, you can't have one with authority over the other. Charlie you go ahead and call it managing, I'll continue to call it OVER RIDING the chapter reps. The super seven BOD needs to be repealed, they legally have zero authority.

Jim
be exceded

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-19-2008, 03:20 PM

You are correct. You have the chain down to a science. Congrats Jim!

Now remove the National Officers as a governing body for that is not their job. They represent the organization, sign correspondence, oversee the daily business of the organization (pay the bills so to speak) responsible for the building assets etc. And Pres is just the Pres.

Anyone who believes this should not vote for me. If you think a group of people meeting once a year for 5 days can effectively manage this or any other organization for the entire year, without missing one item, knowing exactly what is going to happen to the membership numbers, knowing exactly what office equipment will break, knowing exactly each and every power bill, phone bill, etc etc etc Then you have found the absolute perfect management system.

The Membership (very superior body) sends the Convention Delegates (superior body) to tell the Board of Directors (not the superior body) what direction and what programs we want and will support. The delegates are there to ratify the Boards actions and pass a budget revise the bylaws along with any other business brought before the assembly. It is then The B O D who manages these mandates. Their powers are outlined in the Bylaws which are approved by the membership, through their representatives.

Current case in point, this past years rift with the CPO Academy. Doesn't matter what the intent, fact is the B O D exceeded their authority to cut off all support. The membership has stated we will support the CPO Academy. The B O D could not change that. Again all good intent as to why they did, but it was the wrong move to make. The membership shouted it's outrage and the Board reconsidered it's position. All has worked out and we now have a better relationship than we had in the past.

Look, everyone needs to grasp the concept. First, convention is in leiu of an entire membership meeting. It does not eliminate the membership from the decision making process, but provides an avenue for membership input and feedback.I can see no way we could hold an entire membership meeting and believe the membership is truly represented by less than a 100 or so folks. With the convention there is representation. Representation is the main content of it's definition.

(just for you Jim) The LAW say's we shall have a membership meeting. I contend Convention is how we accomplish it. Has nothing to do with understanding the law (as you say I am 100% wrong at it) but has everything to do with how we can meet the requirement, and best serve our members. Prior to 06, this organization used the convention process. Just because the B O D was used to represent, did not change the fact the convention process was used including all of its rules. And to say because they were the B O D and that made it legal, but as we use it now is not, (as you have previously stated) is simply wrong and cannot be supported.

C

Your paragraph #2 Remove the National officers as a governing body, can't do that, bylaws sectionII, 1.b.(2) reprogramming of the annual budget between accounts as may be necessary. THE PRESIDENT MAY DELEGATE THIS AUTHORITY TO THE TREASURER AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EXCEPT THEY SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO ALTER THE TOTAL BUDGET. He who controls the purse strings, controls the association.

Not two BOD's: Section II 2.a. The convention delegation shall be the "GOVERNING BODY" of the associationduring the annual convention. You wrote these things charlie, didn't you understand what you were writing?

Jim

MKCM Jim Bridges (Ret)

09-19-2008, 09:19 PM

You are correct. You have the chain down to a science. Congrats Jim!

Now remove the National Officers as a governing body for that is not their job. They represent the organization, sign correspondence, oversee the daily business of the organization (pay the bills so to speak) responsible for the building assets etc. And Pres is just the Pres.

Anyone who believes this should not vote for me. If you think a group of people meeting once a year for 5 days can effectively manage this or any other organization for the entire year, without missing one item, knowing exactly what is going to happen to the membership numbers, knowing exactly what office equipment will break, knowing exactly each and every power bill, phone bill, etc etc etc Then you have found the absolute perfect management system.

The Membership (very superior body) sends the Convention Delegates (superior body) to tell the Board of Directors (not the superior body) what direction and what programs we want and will support. The delegates are there to ratify the Boards actions and pass a budget revise the bylaws along with any other business brought before the assembly. It is then The B O D who manages these mandates. Their powers are outlined in the Bylaws which are approved by the membership, through their representatives.

Current case in point, this past years rift with the CPO Academy. Doesn't matter what the intent, fact is the B O D exceeded their authority to cut off all support. The membership has stated we will support the CPO Academy. The B O D could not change that. Again all good intent as to why they did, but it was the wrong move to make. The membership shouted it's outrage and the Board reconsidered it's position. All has worked out and we now have a better relationship than we had in the past.

Look, everyone needs to grasp the concept. First, convention is in leiu of an entire membership meeting. It does not eliminate the membership from the decision making process, but provides an avenue for membership input and feedback.I can see no way we could hold an entire membership meeting and believe the membership is truly represented by less than a 100 or so folks. With the convention there is representation. Representation is the main content of it's definition.

(just for you Jim) The LAW say's we shall have a membership meeting. I contend Convention is how we accomplish it. Has nothing to do with understanding the law (as you say I am 100% wrong at it) but has everything to do with how we can meet the requirement, and best serve our members. Prior to 06, this organization used the convention process. Just because the B O D was used to represent, did not change the fact the convention process was used including all of its rules. And to say because they were the B O D and that made it legal, but as we use it now is not, (as you have previously stated) is simply wrong and cannot be supported.

C

Charlie I don't believe you. Your para.#3, The group meeting once a year for five days worked well for over three decades and thats without all the technology of today. Are chiefs less capable these days?

Your para #4 you say the delegates are there to "RATIFY" the actions of the BOD which means to APPROVE the actions of the BOD. I again disagree, the delegates are there to DIRECT the BOD....

Under the "just for Jim" Yes Charlie, the LAW say there shall be a members meeting. The LAW also says that its OK if you don't have one, you keep leaving that part out. The LAW also says that a members meeting requires a members quorum in accordance with the LAW.

Jim

CMC Bruce Bradley

09-20-2008, 08:16 AM

Okay now that we've wandered off course yet again, and yes I know I helped turn the helm a bit, can we get back to the question that started us down this road. Where are the minutes from the last convention? How is anyone short of those select few who attended supposed to know what the status of this "association" is?

I'll start a new thread for all those to debate on what's going on, what laws might be being broken and how we should fix this mess.

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-20-2008, 09:37 AM

No, Charile, you're missing the point. The Chapter Presidents can hold monthly meetings as the National BOD ... via email or other electronic means.

There is no issue so great that it requires an on the spot decision, if there is, a conference call would suffice.

The problem lies in the resistance to change of one generation to the next. Today's generation is more comfortable with email, chatrooms, and other amenities not available to earlier generations. I've embraced the technological changes, my PO2 once said ... eighteen years ago ... Chief, what would do without the computer and fax?

It's time for the association to wake up and smell the new century. In this respect, those on the Active Duty side need to have a revolution and place active duty types in the halls of power. Old Farts, like Jim, need to offer guidance.

I think you're incorrect in your assessment that there are not two governing bodies. One for the convention and one for the rest of the year. That is what the CB&L states.

I'll post the DC code in pdf format as soon as I'm finished creating the wordfile and links. I don't want anyone taking my word for anything. I want them to read and comprend for themselves.

It would cost me at least sixty dollars to re-join the CPOA. Twenty five dollars for membership and thirty-five dollars to get a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and associated documents from the District of Columbia.

No the point has not been missed. Having the Chapter Presidents spread out over the entire country and 5 or 6 time zones is simply a bad idea. Everyone must be engaged in order for it to work. We have never had everyone engaged. As VP I created an email list to every Chapter. My goal was to every Chapter President. I had some who just would not get in contact and we ended up with a rep from the Chapter. (THE PRESIDENTS REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT BE A BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBER) One will not find Proxy anywhere in the law concerning a B O D. A B O D has certain fudiciary responsibilities. (I will post a copy of some comments made by the FRA attorney on this). During my time I sent out emails requesting reply. My average reply was somewhere around 10 - 12. The first year it took 6 or 8 (don't remember exactly)runs to get all the gross receipts reports in.(IRS requirement) Some Presidents would transfer and not contact me nor the National Office to report the move and that new officers were in office. A new person would get in office and have no idea they even had a copy of the National Bylaws and would have no idea of what a Gross Receipt Report was. Neither would they know the requirement to report who their Officers were.

I did not say we did not have two. Governing Bodies does not mean nor is it synonomous with Board of Directors. The Board is a Governing Body with certain authority and duties to perform. The Convention Delegation is a separate Governing Body while assembled who has certain responsibilities and authority to carry out. And while assembled are superior to the B O D as they represent the membership. The two have different functions, different definitions, different responsibilities, and different authority.

One of my plans if elected, is to engage the National Officers, Board of Directors, Standing Committees, and anyother group I see will benefit the association year round via the internet. (email, online meetings, chat rooms, etc) I will once again try to engage the Chapter Presidents and would have certain things I would like for them to accomplish with their local commands and Chief's Mess. As I plan to keep the idea of Regional Advisors this would include them as the overseer's for their respective region. (here I am giving away my secrets)lol

I started preaching the New Century to the current Pres back in 04. He did not see the need to "spoon feed" information. "If they wanted it they could get it themselves". I leave you with that.

Charlie

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-20-2008, 09:43 AM

I did not say we did not have two. Governing Bodies does not mean nor is it synonomous with Board of Directors. The Board is a Governing Body with certain authority and duties to perform. The Convention Delegation is a separate Governing Body while assembled who has certain responsibilities and authority to carry out. And while assembled are superior to the B O D as they represent the membership. The two have different functions, different definitions, different responsibilities, and different authority.

I think this is part of the problem..... a big part.

Wray... :cool:

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-20-2008, 10:35 AM

I think this is part of the problem..... a big part.

Wray... :cool:

What Problem?

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-20-2008, 11:10 AM

Just so everyone does not think I make stuff up here is some bylaws from two other organizations and I can repeat this time after time. Maybe I just do not explain it right.

Section 601(a). The governing body of the _____________ Association
for the Association Year shall be the National Board of Directors
between national conventions and the elected and qualified delegates of branches of the ____________ Association when assembled in a national convention. The authority of a national convention shall be restricted to, and shall comply with, the C&BL and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

From another organization
Subject to direction from the membership, the Board of Directors shall have full power and authority over the affairs of _______ between annual sessions of the membership unless otherwise restricted by these bylaws or the national standing rules.

Reprogramming of the annual budget between accounts as may be necessary. If an Executive Committee is not appointed, the President may delegate this authority to the Treasurer and the Director for Operations except they shall not be authorized to alter the total budget.

The voting body at any meeting of the assembly shall be the accredited chapter delegates (or their alternates), accredited regular members-at-large, all Past TREA National Presidents and all incumbent officers at the national level (except the Parliamentarian) who shall be ex officio officers of the convention. Each accredited delegate, except incumbent officers, who are granted power of attorney by proxy form (TREA Form 100-2 or 100-2M) may cast one proxy vote for a fellow member, as long as the total number of votes cast do not exceed the number of delegates permitted in Section 3 above. Proxy may be given by regular members only.

Nothing I have tried to explain is unprecedented. Also note this second organization even recognizes MAL's.

As you can see, once Jim makes us a Board only organization, he still will have work to do.

ETC Joe Jester ret

09-20-2008, 06:36 PM

Charlie,

Leaving out the associations name doesn't allow for the proper context.

Are they all paid memberships?

Are they spread out over 5 or 6 time zones .... whereas the CPOA is spread out over alot of time zones, assuming there is one in Guam and one in Afganastan.

Email voting can take days, but some things require a little deliberation.

How in the world did those prior to email and computers get anything done? In the other thread Jerald said it's different rules. Yes, it might be. Fortunately you have to follow the law which was updated in 1972 and 1980. Has the Articles of Incorporation been modified since 1969?

As far as those Chapters not giving you their reports on time, you should have stepped up and ask them to return their charter. They have already shown their disregard for the Association.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-21-2008, 09:08 AM

Are they all paid memberships?

Joe, What a perfect example..... How many years has it been since the dues went up, and no one, BOD, President, NES, etc.... can figure out how to get that corrected. THey all just muck along YIKES!

Any, repeat ANY other club you, I or Charlie belonged to, if they had a dues increase and we did not pay the increase we would be dropped like a hot rock. But, what does the leadership of the CPOA do, they take a partial payment, and just drop their voting rights. That is not fair to the member, or the members that do pay the full amount of dues.

Once again, it has been How many years?

Another example............ The E-6 and below that are now a part of the CPOA.

When the CGEA was taken in by the CPOA it was supposed to be for a short period of time until they could get their "feet off the ground"... they have become permanent. Why? ..... The truthful answer is.. WE WANT THEIR MONEY.... and nothing more.

Why are they still in "our" magazine? Do your 30 year old kids still live with you? It is time for them to "Shit or get off the pot".

The eligibility requirements listed in "The CHIEF" say nothing about E-6 and below. Not even in the "Associate Member" section. Now they do say anyone E-6 & below can join the CGEA, and they too can get all the benefits of being a chief simply by paying their $24.00 dues, just as the E-7 - E9's do.

The Chiefs have lost their identity. The organization I joined is now open to ALL ENLISTED. I DID NOT JOIN THAT.

So, Charlie, you want to be President.. Are you going to do ANYTHING about the two above issues, or just "muck along" ???

Wray... :cool:

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-21-2008, 10:32 AM

Joe, What a perfect example..... How many years has it been since the dues went up, and no one, BOD, President, NES, etc.... can figure out how to get that corrected. THey all just muck along YIKES!

Any, repeat ANY other club you, I or Charlie belonged to, if they had a dues increase and we did not pay the increase we would be dropped like a hot rock. But, what does the leadership of the CPOA do, they take a partial payment, and just drop their voting rights. That is not fair to the member, or the members that do pay the full amount of dues.

Once again, it has been How many years?

Another example............ The E-6 and below that are now a part of the CPOA.

When the CGEA was taken in by the CPOA it was supposed to be for a short period of time until they could get their "feet off the ground"... they have become permanent. Why? ..... The truthful answer is.. WE WANT THEIR MONEY.... and nothing more.

Why are they still in "our" magazine? Do your 30 year old kids still live with you? It is time for them to "Shit or get off the pot".

The eligibility requirements listed in "The CHIEF" say nothing about E-6 and below. Not even in the "Associate Member" section. Now they do say anyone E-6 & below can join the CGEA, and they too can get all the benefits of being a chief simply by paying their $24.00 dues, just as the E-7 - E9's do.

The Chiefs have lost their identity. The organization I joined is now open to ALL ENLISTED. I DID NOT JOIN THAT.

So, Charlie, you want to be President.. Are you going to do ANYTHING about the two above issues, or just "muck along" ???

Wray... :cool:

Neither is an issue except how to make each better. We have gone over this before without any positive resolution.

The only ones not paying the $24 is by allotment. WE CANNOT STOP SOMEONES ALLOTMENT, THE MEMBER HIM/HERSELF HAS TO DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have three options, (1)Maintain membership without voting rights. (We have defined member in good standing which you must be to vote) (2)Drop their membership then prepare and mail somewhere around 1000 checks for $1.50 to these members monthly until they stop their allotment. (this would cost us Approx $420 in postage monthly until allotments are stopped by the member, not to mention the check, the envelope and the time involved. (3)Drop their membership and place all the funds received in CCCAF. (this would entail some legal research as to if we can do something with someone's money which they have not authorized)

Options 2 and 3 would lose us $18,000 in operating funds. As far as I know and what makes this a unique problem is we are the only organization I know of that has allotment as a method of payment for dues. (and before anyone yells at me note I said "that I know of"

I want everyone of these paying the proper amount. They have been contacted yet they do nothing with their allotment. I will work to foster an atmosphere where they will want to be a full member, and then maybe all they want is the Magazine. Who Knows? I wish someone could tell me what they want in order to get them to pay the right amount.

CGEA is an constituent organization of the CPOA.They have their own Charter, Own bylaws, own Officers, etc etc etc. They simply operate under our Corporation. All funds received by CGEA members goes to the budget items for CGEA. We keep the Magazine money. We support them. We are their sponsor. THEY ARE THE FUTURE OF THE CPOA! And more importantly they are the future CHIEF'S OF THE COAST GUARD. Remember "as a guide for those who follow".

In this business, membership numbers are everything. The more members the more money, the more money the more benefits, the more benefits the more members we can attract. Cycle starts over. We could drop them and they fold and we lose membership #'s we take to the table everytime we want anything. For the good of the organizations future I believe we must create a huge recruiting effort in the CGEA. When we started this we told them we would work to help them build. This is the real identity we have lost as Chiefs. We have let our people down. We have not done what needs to be done.

As it is now, when a CGEA member is promoted to CPO they automatically cross over to the rolls of the CPOA. Once they separate and have their own corporation, then that member would have to join CPOA on their own accord. They could chose to stay a member of CGEA and not Join CPOA or Vise Versa, or be a member of both, but all the action would have to be taken by the member.

I do want to clear up one thing about me running for National President. It will not be business as usual. History and Tradition are great, wonderful and necessary things to hold on to and use to help us move forward, but we use them and we move forward by not dragging our past with us. It cannot stay the same! It worked fine in 69 does not work fine in 09. We must look ahead for the betterment of all our members and even some who are not. If you want it the same as it has always been then vote for Jon.

With utmost respect and sincerity,
Charlie

BMCS Charlie Womack (Ret)

09-21-2008, 10:40 AM

[QUOTE=ETC Joe Jester ret;33055]Charlie,

Leaving out the associations name doesn't allow for the proper context.

QUOTE]

I did not think it proper in this forum but I will take the chance.

FRA and TREA respectfully

One can go on the TMC and click associations websites and many you can access their bylaws. Some you really have to hunt for and some are in members only areas. If one really does the research they will see just how common the system is. As with anything there are some exceptions, however the vast majority has the same or very simular form.

C

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-21-2008, 01:47 PM

Charlie, I have Delta dental & Tricare Prime. If they raise their rates, and I do nothing, either one of two this will happen...

1. I will be dropped.

2. My allotment will automatically increase to cover the new charges

Yes, we have discussed this before.. and from your answer above, I get the feeling you, if elected would continue to "muck along". Let me ask you .. do you honestly believe that is the RIGHT thing to do?

I wish someone could tell me what they want in order to get them to pay the right amount.

A system implemented as above that would automatically increase allotments rather than the "nothing" currently in place.

As for the CGES...I don't want to hear "THEY ARE THE FUTURE OF THE CPOA! And more importantly they are the future CHIEF'S OF THE COAST GUARD. Remember "as a guide for those who follow".

The CPOA is an organization for CHIEFS.. not YN3's. Give them something to look forward to... as things are now, they see everything.. as things are now the CPPOA is nothing more than an ENLISTED CLUB... E-1 thru E-9. Once again, I did not join that. Can I get my dues refunded? I think not, since I paid for a lifetime membership.

It is obvious this is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.... nothing more. why I find hard to believe is that you fail (not you personally, but the CPOA as a whole) many (not all) E-7's and above don't want to be in a club that takes in EVERY enlisted paygrade. The distinction of being a Chief has gone down the toilet. The CPOA, in my opinion should be the prime organization to help bring that back. but.. once again... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

I wonder how they did it in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 ..... hummmmm...

Enough for me.. I'm heading for the pool.

Sea ya.

Wray.. :cool:

BMCM Deane Smith

09-21-2008, 03:26 PM

Wray...you bring up some very good/legitimate issues with what's wrong with the CPOA. You should bring them up in the "Great Debate" thread.

I agree with what you've said and agree that the association needs to address theses things.

BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)

09-21-2008, 03:45 PM

Deane,
I only answered Charlie's post here.... I agree, they may need to be elsewhere, but the truth of the matter is EVERYONE already knows these things.. current President included. They take the easy road... ignore them.

Regardless of where you post them, or probably even bringing them up at a Convention, nothing will be done about them.. they are money makers for the organization.. The organization needs money to hold conventions that were once done by Chapters. They also choose to hold conventions in places like Las Vegas... They may get their way paid for, but not me... Have one in Orlando and you can coun't I'll be there.. how about E-City, Charlotte, Atlanta, or maybe even Williamsburg VA.... Most of the largest chapters are on the East Coast.. think about it......

I still haven't heard a good explanation why my allotment to Tricare or Delta dental can go up, but not dues to an organization, such as the CPOA. That makes NO SENSE to me at all...... If I had been the President of the CPOA I would have requested a visit with the Commandant and asked him to "make it happen"... I bet he could!

Oh well......glad to hear you agree.. I hope other do, and I hope these items get corrected.. I think they will make a difference... so far Deane, I think you and I are the only ones that agree on this. Obviously Charlie doesn't.

Wray... :cool:

CMC Isherwood

09-21-2008, 04:16 PM

Charlie,
As the membership chairman for the past 6 years, let me clarify a couple things here. Those paying less than $24 annual dues have NOT been contacted. In many cases, they have long since moved and have had ZERO contact with the CPOA beyond their allotment. They receive NO magazine, they receive NO emails and they receive NO support from our association. The lack of contact was/is not due to lack of will or desire. Privacy act concerns prevent PSC from telling the CPOA where the members are now located. As a work around, I placed articles in the Evening Colors, Navy Times and other like publications. I would get two or three each month but, no more than that. $18 per person in dues is better than ZERO dollars, especially when it costs the association nothing to maintain them on the rolls.
Some Chiefs support the CPOA via volunteering their time during the work days, others volunteer their time during their off time and others simply provide cash. We truly need all three to be successful!

Wray,
The automatic increase change to the allotment is DOA. We have tried to work this out with PSC for at least the past 10 years. We have presented every well supported argument to NO avail. We have also tried to reverse the retirement allotment questioning. When you retire, ALL allotments stop unless you specifically state t